I have it, and I like it a lot. It's better than my EF 28-70L from back then, at half the weight and 1/3 the cost, so I don't complain much. It's not as good as the RF28-70L or the RF24-105Z, but that's to be expected.
stanj wrote:
I have it, and I like it a lot. It's better than my EF 28-70L from back then, at half the weight and 1/3 the cost, so I don't complain much. It's not as good as the RF28-70L or the RF24-105Z, but that's to be expected.
Thanks Stan. How would you rate it as compared to the RF 24-105 F4L? There isn't that much of a price difference between the two.
pliukait wrote:
Thanks Stan. How would you rate it as compared to the RF 24-105 F4L? There isn't that much of a price difference between the two.
Tough. The f4 was never my favorite, in any incarnation. The L is better built, doesn't have this strange "turn to shooting position" behavior, and similar if not a bit better IQ. But it's not an f2.8, which is something that's essential for some uses (in my case, to give something to my son to shoot with at school for the yearbook). Also for people photography I'd rather have the f2.8, for landscapes the f4 would be fine. As a lens collector I have all the mid range lenses and the f4 is my least used one, one that today I wouldn't get in the first place.But that's for my use.
pliukait wrote:
Thanks Stan. I'm toying with the 28-70 or the 24-105 or just keep my EF 24-70 F4L and the EF-RF adapter.
I don't have any RF lenses, so I'm deciding which should be my first. And there is the 24-240 STM to throw into the mix as well.
I own both right now-
The 24-105 and the 28-70
If I didn’t own other fast zooms/primes I would want the 28-70.
I own other options in 2.8 or under so the 24-105 is my keeper. IQ wise, probably the 24-105 outnudges it but in situations where ISO comes in to play, the 28-70 probably wins.
Also the 28-70 is tiny, light and really easy to handle/bring along. Again though, I own other options but the 28-70 is a phenomenal little lens that is worth the price of admission.
I have not used the new lens, but I have experience with f2.8 lenses in this range. For me, 24-105 f4 wins just on range alone.
f2.8 is just not fast enough for great subject isolation at the wider angles (28-50). So for that reason I always end up with at least 1-2 primes in this range. And they are often small and affordable, for example, 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8. The primes also obviously do better indoors without flash.
And in the portrait range, 70mm is not very satisfying. It's just always a bit short. I miss 85mm and 105mm. In terms of bg blur, 105mm f4 is as good as 70mm f2.8, but at a more flattering focal length.
Fast focus corners are not bad even at 2.8 I have really enjoyed so far have only tested on my R8 and R10 haven't mounted it to the R5 yet will be my main travel lens on the R8
Ray Still wrote:
Fast focus corners are not bad even at 2.8 I have really enjoyed so far have only tested on my R8 and R10 haven't mounted it to the R5 yet will be my main travel lens on the R8
Any use on the R5 yet? I have the 28-70 f2 which I absolutely love, but I’m getting tired of the weight and bulk. I’m an amateur and heavily considering replacing with the 2.8. I went to the f2 from the RF 24-70, which I loved, but I love the F2 more. Would likely skip going back to the 24-70 and instead go to the new 28-70 if it makes sense. About 90% of what I shoot relates to my kiddos (both under 4 years old).
If you go anywhere, the 28-70 f/2 seems awfully big and bulky. For a general purpose "kids" setup I would go with a 28-70 f/2.8 plus a faster prime like the 85mm f/2. Do you take a lot of shots at f/2? If so, start taking them at f/2.8 for a while and see if that meets your needs.
osidesurfer wrote:
If you go anywhere, the 28-70 f/2 seems awfully big and bulky. For a general purpose "kids" setup I would go with a 28-70 f/2.8 plus a faster prime like the 85mm f/2. Do you take a lot of shots at f/2? If so, start taking them at f/2.8 for a while and see if that meets your needs.
Kevin
F2 isn’t a must for me but I enjoy the bokeh when I use it. Also helps separate kiddos from surroundings. But in no way is it necessary. I really don’t want to lose too much of the contrast or sharpness that the f2 offers. I have the 70-200 f2.8 and am happy with those pictures, but obviously the compression is much different.
I was actually debating grabbing the 85 or maybe even the 35 f1.8.
Someone just posted a YouTube review that compares the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 to the RF 28-70mm f/2 as well as a couple more RF zooms. There is the usual comment discussion of you got a good copy of this lens versus another lens, etc., but you may find it useful. There is also a link to the raw files.
The 28-70/2 was a dream lens when the kids were small, and yes on the few occasions that they show up at home I do shoot them at f2. But that lens didn't exist back then.
Now, the 28-70/2.8 is my dream lens, because it's so much less to carry around for an old man Then again, says the man who just took the 24-105Z and 135 to Japan...
pliukait wrote:
Thanks Stan. I'm toying with the 28-70 or the 24-105 or just keep my EF 24-70 F4L and the EF-RF adapter.
I don't have any RF lenses, so I'm deciding which should be my first. And there is the 24-240 STM to throw into the mix as well.
I can't help you any in regards to this lens as I don't own it. Or any other RF glass faster than f/4 which works for most of my work. I am getting an itch for a fast portrait lens though and this one is on my list of considerations.
One thing that no one has mentioned that I think you should take into strong consideration before you buy is the fact that once you pick-up your first RF lens, suddenly using the EF-RF adapter becomes a PITA. You'll likely start switching over completely to RF lenses shortly there after. That was what I experienced at least.
If all your glass is EF then the adapter is simply welded to your R6II and you never have to think about it. But as soon as you add an RF lens to your bag, it changes the simplicity. I didn't see that part coming.
The only EF lenses that I use now (still own several others) are my 100mm 2.8 L macro and my glorious 500mm f/4 II. I rarely use the macro so the adapter is welded to my 500 at all times. But that has bit me in the ass a couple of times when I headed out the door with my macro lens in the bag and left my 500 at home.
A solution $$ that some have done is to buy adapters for all their EF lenses so it's not an issue. I couldn't justify that added expense and chose to use that money towards RF lenses.
I have no regrets upgrading to RF glass, but any small amount of image quality improvement (if any) was never a deciding factor for my switch. Size and weight were though along with the above mentioned compatibility issue.
Just something to keep in mind before you make the jump. Cause it'll likely cost you a whole bunch more than you expect when it's all said and done.
lighthound wrote:
Just something to keep in mind before you make the jump. Cause it'll likely cost you a whole bunch more than you expect when it's all said and done.
Dave
That's what I am afraid of, the dent in the pocketbook! 😁
I think I'm going to keep my EF lenses for now. The results are fine, and swapping lenses while keeping the adapter the camera is, right now, not a big deal.
I seriously thought about biting the bullet and getting the RF 24-105 F4L, but then the EF 70-200 F4L would be less useful, being as the focal length difference than with the EF 24-70 F4L.
That would mean the need to get an RF 100-500. It just goes on and on...... 😁
lighthound wrote:
I think you should take into strong consideration before you buy is the fact that once you pick-up your first RF lens, suddenly using the EF-RF adapter becomes a PITA. You'll likely start switching over completely to RF lenses shortly there after. That was what I experienced at least.
Yep, this right here, haha.
I bought my first mirrorless late in the game, an R6 with adapter, and figured I was set... All my EF lenses basically got better (or at least, more consistently focusing).
My big mistake was becoming seduced by the lighter, smaller RF 70-200 and then by the 100-500. After that, it was all downhill from there.
I am certain that I would be making equally fine pictures today had I simply kept my EF glass. I have not the willpower to resist the new shiny, I guess.
